Marti v. Interstate Power and Light et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand to State Court. (See order text) Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 9/29/15. (ksy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD E. MARTI,
Plaintiff,

No. 15-CV-1016-LRR

vs.

ORDER

INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT
and ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
____________________
The matter before the court is Plaintiff Richard E. Marti’s “Motion to Remand to
State Court” (“Motion”) (docket no. 9), which Marti filed on August 21, 2015. On
August 28, 2015, Defendants filed a Resistance (docket no. 10). On September 3, 2015,
Marti filed a Reply (docket no. 11).
In the Complaint, Marti asserts claims for employment discrimination based on a
disability under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. See
Complaint (docket no. 3). On May 18, 2015, Defendants removed the case to this court
on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal (docket no. 2). In the
Motion, Marti argues that the court does not have jurisdiction over his Iowa state law
claims and, therefore, the court must sever the state law claims and remand only those
claims to the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County. See Brief in Support of the
Motion (docket no. 9-1).
28 U.S.C. § 1441 states:
(1)

If a civil action includes—
(A)

a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States (within the meaning
of section 1331 of this title), and

(B)

(2)

a claim not within the original or supplemental
jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that
has been made nonremovable by statute, the
entire action may be removed if the action would
be removable without the inclusion of the claim
described in subparagraph (B).

Upon removal of an action described in paragraph (1),
the district court shall sever from the action all claims
described in paragraph (1)(B) and shall remand the
severed claims to the State court from which the action
was removed.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The instant case does not include “a claim not within the original
or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made
nonremovable by statute.” Id. Marti’s state law claims are “so related to claims in the
action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” and the court may
therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Therefore, because removal was proper and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims, the court will not sever the state law claims. Accordingly, the Motion
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of September, 2015.